Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee

The first paper to note is a Welsh Government response to the committee's report on Amgueddfa Cymru's accounts for 2021-22. Paper to note 2 is a letter form the chair of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee on the committee's report on Amgueddfa Cymru's accounts 2021-22. The Welsh Government wrote to us on 7 August with a response to our report. The report included 14 recommendations, 18 of which were addressed to the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government has accepted or 'accepted in principle' all but one of the committee's recommendations. The Welsh Government rejected recommendation 3 of the report. It said that the Welsh Government should consider implementing a review of the grievance policies at all of its arm's-length bodies and sponsored bodies, to ensure that they are robust and fit for purpose. In response, the Welsh Government states that those policies are the responsibility of the individual accounting officers, noting that a review would lead to a significant staff cost. They state they will provide advice to bodies when required.

On recommendation 7 of the report, the Welsh Government notes that they are developing guidance to cover concerns or complaints made against a chair of a public body in Wales, which they state they will share with the committee when this is finalised. This is in response to our recommendation seeking further information about the outcome of thematic work we are conducting. The committee may wish to ask the Government to clarify the position set out in its response to recommendation 7, with reference to the evidence it gave to us on 29 November 2023, and to ask how it has obtained assurance that procedures are now in place to mitigate the risk of the issues at Amgueddfa Cymru occurring at its other arm's-length bodies. The response we received also sets out further information about the update of 'Managing Welsh Public Money', about the appointment of the former president to head a review of governance at Cadw, about the roll-out of the self-assessment tool for reviewing arm's-length bodies, and about the Welsh Government's discussions with Amgueddfa Cymru about additional funding.

The committee is awaiting the museum's response to the recommendations, which we expect shortly. Members may wish to table discussion of next steps until this information is received. The Chair of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee has also written to us to acknowledge our report, noting that their committee will monitor our progress. Members, do you have any comments? Natasha, and then Mike.

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to note the letter sent by the Chair of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee, and I have no problem with keeping them abreast as to what we're doing in the committee in relation to this.

I do want to put on record that I am really disappointed at the fact that they rejected recommendation 3. I think, having sat on this committee for quite some time, with other colleagues as well, one thing that has really been concerning has indeed been the level of reviewing of the grievance policies that are in place at the moment. I fear that if they're not reviewed, it will lead to a lot more legal costs being incurred by the Welsh Parliament going forward, for particular issues such as the one we've encountered previously. I won't go into too much depth and detail, because I know all the Members are aware of it, but I would like to revisit that and see if something can be done, because my fear is that the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament, has already been involved in something that's been quite messy, murky and icky, and I don't want this to be a continuous feature that comes about if, in future, we come across a similar problem.

Are we going to ask for a debate on this?

Well, that's a good proposal, an interesting proposal. Natasha, what do you feel about that?

I'm more than happy to have a debate on this—I'll back Mike on that one—if we can, and I'm more than happy to contribute to that.

Yes, I'm happy to do so. I think it's a very topical and pertinent issue. Owain, is that something that, from your perspective, should be feasible?

Yes, that's something we can certainly look at. One thing I would say is that we've also had the museum's response to this report. It came too late to be in the pack for today's papers, but it will be in the papers for next week's meeting. So, maybe that's something that the clerking team can look at and we can come back to you with a proposal on that at next week's meeting.

I think more important than the reply is the fact that we've identified something, or Adrian's team has identified something, that is a problem. I think it would be right for us to take this out into the Senedd as a whole. As Mark and Natasha are well aware, committees do tend not to pay much attention to what's happening in other committees, unless Members are on them, and this is an opportunity for the Senedd as a whole to discuss this. So, I really would like to ask for a debate on it. If we don't get it, we don't get it, but I think we should be proactive in asking for it.

I completely concur on a personal basis, but as Owain said, our next meeting's papers will include the wider issue and perhaps we can—. Well, I think that we can say that we've agreed that we want to request a debate on this, but we'll firm up perhaps the content or subject matter after the next meeting. My only observation, again in terms of recommendation 3—a question, rather than an observation—is, given the legal position regarding these arm's-length bodies, whether the Welsh Government can override the responsibility of the individual accounting officers in such circumstances, or would they have to change the current legal basis on which those bodies operate, were they to do so. It might be helpful, Owain, if you don't have the answer, if perhaps we could establish that, so that, when we have a debate or take a further action, we're able to challenge on the basis of full evidence.

We'll speak with colleagues and put the wheels in motion on that.

Thank you very much indeed. Auditor General, or a representative—. I think I saw Adrian. Do you wish to comment on this?

Just a couple of short comments, but I can see that Rhianon has been trying to get in, so it may be better if you go to her first.

Thank you very much. I think in terms of recommendation 3, that is an issue. I am in favour of a debate. In regard to this issue pertinent to Amgueddfa Cymru, absolutely there are matters that we need to continue to look at. I am also concerned—and I don't know if I've missed anything—in terms of the arm's-length body generic responsibilities in terms of how we are dealing with them per se, how they are being self-assessed in the long run. I do think we have to look very clearly at the model in terms of our arm's-length bodies, and I would hope that there would be a wider scope than just this particular issue. I don't know where that would be placed. I don't know if somebody could respond to that. Thank you.

Owain, do you want to pick up on that before Adrian comments? Adrian, do you wish to capture that in your observations? Owain, do you have any thoughts on that?

It's probably best to discuss in private some of the next steps that the committee would want to take, but we did make recommendations about the self-assessment model, so there's certainly scope for us to revisit that in future, particularly if there's other scrutiny that we do with other arm's-length bodies in the future as well. It's certainly something we can capture, Rhianon, and maybe revisit together as a committee in private.

Thank you. Recommendation 3, which was mentioned earlier, related to all arm's-length bodies and sponsored bodies, so, a very pertinent point. So, Adrian, back to you.

Thank you, Mark. Just a few thoughts, which, if you do secure a slot for a debate, it may be worth keeping me in mind for that. So, I was a little surprised that, in rejecting recommendation 3, the Government didn’t at least reference its response to your recommendation 7, which is about providing more clarity around the procedures when grievances involve the chair of an arm’s-length body—so, the two seem quite closely connected to me.

On that recommendation 7, which is accepted in principle—and I think the Government respond that they will keep the committee informed—the committee’s recommendation reflected very much the same recommendation that I had made in my original report in November of last year. So, I'm just a little concerned that it’s still described as being in development the best part of a year on. So, that may be something that you wish to pursue in debate. The response touches on our old friend, 'Managing Welsh Public Money' and the updating process. I know that’s picked up in later papers that we’re maybe taking in private around your report on the scrutiny of the Government’s accounts.

And finally, there are a couple of recommendations at the end, recommendations 10 and 14, which are accepted, but there is no indication of timescale given, so, that may be something you want to get some more precision from the Government on.

Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Rhianon.

Yes, I would just concur with what's just been said, fully.

Thank you. Okay, well, there seem to be agreed action points to take forward, so, we'll pick up on this, as we said, at the next meeting and, hopefully, secure a slot for a debate, which the clerking team will also be taking forward, as well as seeking advice on the point that I raised.

If Members are content otherwise to note the letters, we will move on to paper to note 3, a letter from the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, which sets out an assessment of the Welsh Government's progress in implementing the continuous learning and improvement Plan, which has an acronym of CLIP, which was informed by the commissioner's section 20 review into how the Welsh Government implements the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

The future generations commissioner notes that he is, quote,

'confident that good progress has been achieved in producing and delivering the CLIP.'

He adds, quote:

'It is clear from the update that some actions are well underway, but several actions are still in their infancy'

and hence he's not able to provide a full analysis. The commissioner notes that he has requested all public bodies to complete the ways of working journey checker, which is an interactive web-based tool developed from the maturity matrix, produced during the section 20 review, by September 2024.

So, Members, do you wish to have any comments on the letter, or otherwise note it?

I'm happy to note, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed. In which case, we'll move on to paper to note 4, a follow-up response from Digital Health and Care Wales, who have written to us, alongside the Health and Social Care Committee, to provide a scheduled update on three of the recommendations made following our joint report of August 2023.

Their response or update provides an update on the progress of delivering the Welsh community care information system, which was recommendation 3, on the human resources systems and capacity system in place to facilitate the recruitment and retention of specialist skills, which was our recommendation 10, and on the evaluations undertaken with partner organisations on their existing approaches to collaboration, which was our recommendation 15.

The letter goes on to say, and I quote:

'In conclusion, we have provided regular updates to the Committees since the publication of the report recommendations. Updates on the progress of major programmes delivery, including the NHS Wales App and WCCIS, can be found on the Programme Delivery Committee website going forward. Updates on People and Organisational and Stakeholder Engagement will continue to be taken to the SHA Board with papers available on the DHCW website.'

At this point, I apologise to anyone listening in for the use of all these acronyms. I'm quoting directly.

So, 'Unless', they say,

'you would like specific bespoke updates, we will assume this is sufficient for future updates against each of the recommendations.'

So, Members, do you have any comments, observations, or are you content to note the letter? Natasha.

Happy to note.

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to note, as Rhianon said, but there is just one paragraph that slightly set small alarm bells off within my head, and that was on pack page 19, the paragraph under the update section. It says:

'Due to the current funding structure for a significant amount of our programmes, we have to use fixed term contracts, as programme funding is non-recurrent. This year we have assigned some £3.6m to fixed term staff to support programmes',

which is fine,

'which currently have unconfirmed funding post March 2025. There is a risk that as people move into the last six months of their contracts'.

What will they be doing to counteract that then—asking for more funding?

Good point, yes.

That was my only slight concern. Like I say, everything else in the letter I was happy to agree with, but I just wanted to know what does that imply when it comes to this digital element going forward, because if it's costing £3.6 million now, they haven't got any funding post March next year, then what happens? Are they going to ask for more, double, triple? What's it likely to look like?

Perhaps we can capture that. Other Members, do you have any thoughts? Owain, I wonder if you could just remind us, obviously, their assumption is that they've now provided sufficient for future updates against each of the recommendations, does that comply with the original requirement for regular or for scheduled updates, or—? Has that requirement now been fulfilled?

My understanding is we didn't set out specific end dates for the update. It was worded in certain time increments, six monthly et cetera, so 'yes', I suppose, is the answer to the question, but we'd need to look into it in more depth if that's something that you wanted to take further forward. I believe the auditor general wants to come in as well.

Before I bring Adrian in, my thoughts are we would need some advice on whether the different mechanisms for seeking updates that they detail will meet or will enable this committee to shine a light on the information we need to have. Adrian.

Thank you, Mark. I think it's worth the committee just reflecting on whether this is giving the committee what it intended in the first place, because I guess, technically speaking, the organisation is providing an awful lot of information, but it's quite hard to wade through, because you not only have to click on some links that will take you to the suite of papers, you'll then have to drill down into specific papers within those links to find what you're after. So, if the committee will bear with us, I'd just invite Dave just maybe to step back a bit and offer a few reflections on how we see the picture at DHCW, and that might help the committee then frame what it does moving forward.

Thanks, Adrian. Thanks, Chair. Good morning, all. Notwithstanding Natasha's query about the funding for the staff issue, I think it's probably fine for the committee to note the updates to recommendations 10 and 15, noting that Audit Wales has got work planned on stakeholder engagement at DHCW starting about now and taking us through to the end of the calendar year. I think the issue that the committee may just want to pause on is the update to recommendation 3, which is on the WCCIS system, which has now been replaced by something called the Connecting Care programme. If you follow the link in the DHCW update to its committee papers, you will ultimately get to a report from a gateway review of that programme that reflects an amber/red rating, given uncertainty of the funding for that programme going forward, and a request that Welsh Government receives further business case updates. That's alongside the inherent risks in such a large, complex programme, anyway. So, noting the previous committee discussion on the WCCIS when DHCW was in front of the health committee and PAPAC previously, there are still significant risks in that particular system.

If you follow the links further into the programme update committee papers, you'll see that DHCW is carrying risks across many of its programmes at the moment—not directly related to their input; a lot of them are linked to funding uncertainties. But that might just make the committee pause to see how it wants to take it forward. Are you happy to trawl through website papers to get the updates you need, or might you want to consider having an update session with DHCW, either jointly with the health committee or yourselves, and maybe include other stakeholders as well? Because this isn't just a DHCW issue, it's a wider system issue. So, I think those are issues that the committee may want to just pause on before it finalises this item.

Thank you. So, the advice we're receiving is that, either in correspondence or through in-person attendance as witnesses, we do need continued specific, bespoke updates and it should not be put on our clerking team or on Members to have to trawl through various websites and papers to try and find the information we need. So, Members, in terms of Dave Thomas's proposal, would you like to invite them to attend a further evidence session, perhaps jointly with the other committee, or, alternatively, to advise them that we wish bespoke, specific updates to continue?

Chair?

Is that Rhianon? Yes, please.

Yes, sorry. Unfortunately, I was looking at a different paper. So, yes, I've gone through this previously, I was going to say if we could invite them to us to speak directly. In terms of their updates, I totally agree that being asked, on every specific recommendation, virtually, to go through barriers and websites to be able to be fully clear from our end what's happening is not sufficient, it's not satisfactory, and, absolutely, that needs to be placed with DHCW. And I would support them coming to us so that we can have clear information and make the points as we need to as well. Thanks.

Thank you. In that case, could I suggest, Owain, that we respond to them stating that the committee would like specific, bespoke updates, beginning with, at the next instance, an in-person attendance at a meeting, and if you could pursue the feasibility of that being joint with our sister committee? Might it also be worth capturing the concern that Natasha raised, but noting, as Dave stated, the work that Audit Wales are going to be doing related to this and that we will be revisiting this once Audit Wales has concluded that work?

We can certainly do that.

Chair, can I make a suggestion, please? Just following on from what has Dave said, in relation to the fact that we have to click on link after link after link, I think it may be worthwhile and prudent for us as a committee to request, Owain, please, in the letter that you're going to write to them—obviously, I'm happy for the invitation, as Rhianon said—that, when it comes down to giving us recommendations like this, they set it out in really basic, layman terms, for example, bullet point by bullet point. Let's call it the greatest hits, for example—I know, obviously, that's not going to be the title of it—but bullet point by bullet point, and, if they are going to reference specific websites, at the end of it, do a footnote, 'This website, specific paragraph, page et cetera', so it makes life easier for us, as well as the auditor general's office, to understand where they're going with it. I'm sure they have the time to be able to make it as simplified as possible, so, if they can do that, going forward, I think we as a committee would really appreciate it.

Thank you. Natasha. Sorry, Rhianon.

Thank you. I would agree with that. I think in terms of it being a wider system issue, it's very easy, then, to just carry on doing this, so I think it does need to be addressed. I know that we've mentioned that we're going to bring in others—we'll call them stakeholders—in this regard, but I think this is an issue that, if we are finding this difficult, then, obviously, the public are probably going to come up against even more barriers. So, yes, we address this, because this is what we've requested to the committee, but I think, if it's a wider system issue, then that has to equally be redressed.

Okay, thank you. Well, if we have nothing further on this paper—I think we've agreed decisions to go forward on—I'll move to our fifth paper to note, a letter from the director general and chief operating officer in relation to Local Partnerships LLP.

So, following our evidence session on the 12 June this year, the director general and chief operating officer at the Welsh Government has written to us to provide further information to us. The letter provides some further information that may be of interest. The Welsh Government confirms that there was no decision report about its acquisition of a 5 per cent holding in Local Partnerships. Might the committee want to ask what criteria the Welsh Government applies for decision reports, as we might have expected its acquisition to be set out in one? The Welsh Government confirms that 14 members of its staff are based in Wales, all but one of whom has worked on projects with the Welsh Government, the exception being a non-client-facing operational support officer. This is in the context of Local Partnerships having an average of 75 staff in the year to 31 March 2023.

On the Welsh Government's use of the Teckal exemption and use of single tender action where services are procured, the response does not provide the information the committee requested. The response says it does not keep a central list of bodies from which it can procure services using the Teckal exemption. The Welsh Government notes that all expenditure incurred by the Welsh Government must comply with 'Managing Welsh Public Money', which the committee has noted needs updating. While they add there's no assumption that Local Partnerships will be the default option when officials decide to appoint external consultants, the Welsh Government's response does not explain how they decide which company to use.

On long-term projects, the Welsh Government states that consultants are only used for as long as required. However, for the Welsh Government energy service, it agrees an annual work plan with Local Partnerships to reflect changing requirements.

So, bearing those and any other points you might have in mind, Members, do you have any comments? Let me enlarge my screen. I don't see any hands up. Yes, Rhianon.

Yes, I'm still of the mind that the ability to be able to scrutinise this isn't as clear as it could be in terms of spend. And obviously, we've got the letter in front of us. I don't know what other Members think, but I'm still scratching around with this one, trying to work out exactly how they are scrutinised themselves. I don't know if there's an answer from our clerks in this regard. 'How are we as a scrutiny committee, apart from what we're doing now, obviously, getting systemic clarity on spend in this regard?' would be my question. There might be a simple answer, but—.

Owain is shaking his head negatively. Is that correct?

Well, the information that Members are considering this morning is what the clerking team have. So, in terms of scrutiny, if you want to ask that question, or if you feel that this letter doesn't address that, that's a matter for Members.

Other Members, any comments? Natasha.

I just have one question. On pack page 24 it says—and this is the first paragraph underneath the chart—

‘A list of completed projects by Local Partnerships is provided at Annex. In terms of transparency, Welsh Government publishes expenditures over £25,000’.

So, just for my own knowledge, if make an expenditure, for example, or if the Welsh Government makes an expenditure, of £24,999, where does that go? Where is it published? Just for my own knowledge, please.

Do Audit Wales have an answer to that one?

Or is there no obligation at all to publish anything under the £25,000?

We'll get an answer to you on that, Natasha.

Okay. Thank you so much, Owain.

My only observation particularly is at the apparent contradiction of the use of the Welsh Government's term 'Teckal exemption', when it doesn't keep a central list enabling procurement of services using that.

Yes. And I think, Chair, that's probably at the root of this, as well as the fact that we've, obviously, asked for this information, and, if we hadn't had asked for this information, as we should, there is no systemic ability for us, if we hadn't had done that, to be able to have got this, and you could say that's chicken and egg. I think the Teckal exemption, obviously there's a reason for that, but that does slightly concern me, because how do we scrutinise that in any shape, way or form? And with everything that's occurred in terms of central Government at Westminster, with personal protective equipment and contracts going to friends and families—. That's not happening, as far as we know, in Welsh Government at all, but we should be able to, as a scrutiny committee, have all the information about public money in an appropriate way to scrutinise.

Mark, can I come in?

Yes, please.

I think the £24,000 to £25,000 is interesting, but what about blocks of £24,000, with 10 blocks of £24,000 consecutively paid to the same company? Would it be actually picked up as £240,000, or would each one be dealt with separately? And I think we need to get the information on that, because people do have a tendency to come just under certain numbers.

Lovely. Well, perhaps Owain could capture that within—

Good point.

—what we're going to be doing.

Mark, could I just—?

Oh, sorry. Adrian.

Sorry to butt in. I'm conscious that you reference LLP, I think, in the draft report on the Government's report on accounts—so, further opportunity to talk this through later in the private session—but it's interesting, and I think you're on the right lines with the conversation you're just starting to have now, which is broadening the issue out away from Local Partnerships per se, which, though it's working in some very important areas, is relatively small beer in the scheme of Government procurement. But if you take a look at that spreadsheet that's referenced in the letter to contracts over £25,000, not only are the issues that you've already flagged relevant to that, but you'll see it actually doesn't tell you an awful lot. It will give you a long list of contracts and their value, but no information about purpose and so on. So, you may be tapping into a broader theme about transparency of procurement that is worth pursuing. But, as I say, you might want to pick that up in the private discussion later, where you can frame a specific recommendation to the Welsh Government.

So, if we could do that, then, perhaps, later and agree how we wish to take this forward with the Welsh Government in our further scrutiny.

If Members are content with that, we'll move on to our sixth paper to note, a letter received from the Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd related to scrutiny of accounts 2022-23, update on recommendations from 23 September this year. The Senedd Commission has written to us with an update on recommendations made following our scrutiny of their 2022-23 accounts, including on their carbon-neutral strategy, on use of artificial intelligence, on diversity data and other matters. The committee will have the opportunity to discuss its future work on the Senedd Commission later in today's meeting. Are Members therefore content to note this letter at this point?

I think Members are, so thank you very much indeed. That brings us to the end of our papers to note.

I propose that, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of today's meeting. Are all Members content? I think that all Members present are content, so I'd be grateful, Owain, if you could take us into private session.